Now this is LARGE format

[Brian Schall]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/mathie&id=8543975&hpt=us_bn6

Wonder where he gets his film.

[Joanna Carter]

I may never be satisfied with 4x5 again :eek: ;)

[Brian C. Miller]

Dennis Manarchy has been discussed in several threads on the forum. The most recent one was in the Lounge, asking if his camera is fake.

OK, the camera isn't fake. The film isn't fake. Very likely he has ponied up $15,000+ for a Kodak special order, and they filled it. But that's no problem for him, as a portrait session is $50,000.

Added: somebody take a look at the negatives. There's strips of lack of density on those, on either side of the subject. I can't tell if that's a display backlighting problem, or if it's a real problem on the negatives.

[EOTS]

Harhar, that's badass! :-)
Imagine doing the development & fixing at home *rotfl*!!!

[John Flavell]

Here's more info on the project and the proposed exhibit:

http://thefpac.org/

[Scott Walker]

Wow!
I want one :D

[Kirk Gittings]

So what do you gain over 8x10? Better definition of pores and zits? Its a gimmick.

[Brian C. Miller]

Yeah, Kirk, it's a gimmick like that gargantuan banquet camera that was used to photograph a train at one shot. It's also a gimmick to build monster trucks and break land speed records and jump the Grand Canyon. Or at least try to jump the Grand Canyon. (At least with a giant camera you won't get seriously injured or killed!)

The main thing I want to see is the completed project. What "vanishing cultures" are going to be photographed? That camera isn't appropriate to that task, but maybe the project will generate interest in these "vanishing cultures." The "smaller" cameras (like 8x10) are more fitting to that task.

Oh, there's also a Kickstarter project for this. But you have to donate $7,500 to receive a 16ft print on "weatherproof canvas." Doesn't mention if that's on real photo emulsion or not. For $10,000 you get a negative from the camera.

[EOTS]

Yeah, I think anything over 8x10 is pretty overkill for those print sizes until film size equals print size, like wet plate etc...

But interesting nevertheless ...

And funny to think of 4x5 and 8x10 as compact cameras now ...
can't wait to see the Field version of the truck camera ;-)

[Ron McElroy]

What I don't understand about the project is the final enlarged print. How are they enlarged and more importantly why?

[Daniel Stone]

How are they "enlarging" it? Some gigantic-ass process camera? I don't even know of a scanner that can work with media that large....

Where's Asher Kelman? I thought he was talking about doing something like this, but shooting onto Ilfochrome directly.

-Dan

[Oren Grad]

Meh... Minicams like 11x14 and 12x20 are so much more practical.

[Mike Anderson]

I don't get this:

What we're trying to do is capture this little essence of this country before it totally gets homogenized. Before everyone gets homogenized.
I think he just wanted to explore some extreme technology and needed some conceptual rationale to get the funding. Who's getting homogenized?

[Lenny Eiger]

I seem to remember from photo history class that someone built a 12 foot camera in Sydney Harbor in the 1870's. (Am I right-?) They built a 100 foot one here in CA a couple of years ago. Old news....

Fun truck, tho'

Lenny

[CantikFotos]

Imagine the porn you could shoot with that!

[Drew Wiley]

Not even close. Did you see the one where they turned the whole inside of a blimp hanger into a pinhole camera, and applied Liquid Light, then dev and fix, using painting gear? They got the size record, even if the image itself looked pretty crappy.

[Bill_1856]

Old saying by artists: "If you can't make it good, make it big,"

[Nathan Potter]

How are they "enlarging" it? Some gigantic-ass process camera? I don't even know of a scanner that can work with media that large....

Where's Asher Kelman? I thought he was talking about doing something like this, but shooting onto Ilfochrome directly.

-Dan

Maybe they're using a Gigapan to rephotograph - then on to inkjet section by section. :confused:

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[SMBooth]

Seriously, how do they print them?

[MIke Sherck]

The woman newscaster, referring to the 80-odd year old fighter pilot he photographed, said "just think: he saw the invention of the camera!"

*Sigh* Ok, the camera was invented, what, 1930-ish?

Mike

[Jim Jones]

Seriously, how do they print them?

Simple. They photograph the huge negative with their 35mm digital and send the file to Costco. At least they might as well, if they really intend to use it for portraits.

[Oren Grad]

Seriously, how do they print them?

The output is evidently inkjet. But how the originals are scanned isn't obvious.

[poliweb]

The output is evidently inkjet. But how the originals are scanned isn't obvious.

Sure it's obvious. They shoot an 8x10 interneg of the original and then scan and print that.

Right??

Richard

[Lenny Eiger]

Seriously, how do they print them?

Oh, come on. They take a shot of the neg with an iPhone and print it. Anyone can see that.. ;-)

Lenny

[genotypewriter]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/mathie&id=8543975&hpt=us_bn6

Wonder where he gets his film.

Being too curious and not being able to find any more information about the camera, etc. other than hearing it produces "warm... true... honest... life-like" images... I took matters on to my own hands and decided to do some calculations.

I first looked at the trailer CGI (http://vimeo.com/27359714) (completely assuming that it's to scale) and estimated the relative height of a seated person in pixels... approximately 98. So if we assume an average person is 6ft tall that translates to around 16.3 pixels per foot. The trailer measured out to be almost exactly 570 pixels and this makes total sense because they say it's a "35 ft camera" (570/16.3=35).

Looking at the rotating CGI (0:49 in the video), I noticed the film plane is directly above the rearmost axle. This was the last piece of the puzzle as I could estimate out the focal length of the lens using the thin lens equation as follows:

1/o + 1/i = 1/f

o = 75 pixels = 4.6 ft
i = 300 pixels = 18.4 ft

(Note how i is exactly 4 times o) So, after solving the equation, f or focal length = 3.7 ft = 44 inches = 1120mm

As we know the image plane is "6 feet" (1828.8mm) tall (in portrait orientation), we can calculate the angle of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view#Example) now:

2 * arctan(1828.8/(2*1120)) = 78.5 degrees

... but that's a classic wide... exactly like a 75mm lens on 4x5 or a 150 on 8x10. And his portraits don't look like they've been shot with a wide.

Also, I consider the "portrait" field of view to as half of "normal" which is approximately 22.5 degrees. In which case, either the film height needs to be 18 inches, instead of 6 ft... or the focal length needs to be around 168 inches instead of 44 but then that would mean the trailer (o+i) needs to be at least 87.5ft! :eek:

Since this is an estimation I expect things to be a bit off, but not by this much... especially when the CGI is accurate about the person's height and the trailer length.

What am I missing here? :confused:

[Light Guru]

I'll take a wallet size print please.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.628221,-116.227373

[Steven Scanner]

@genotypewriter. As a novice with just the basic physics knowledge I can follow your calculations. Something is off, but I can't figure out what it is. It's like figuring out a magicians secret.
Same goes for the film he uses. There is not a lot of light going onto the film. So the secitivity would have to be high and the shutter speed long.

[Marc B.]

In the video, they show a fairly elaborate head and neck armature-brace for the posing chair. I'm sure the exposure times and lighting duration is much longer then what was shown in the video...trade secrets and so on.
Lets see...the exposure compensation for a bellows draw of 20+ feet...would be...?

[genotypewriter]

Stevan and Marc,

Doesn't he use strobes?

Also off the top of my head I can't see how the bellows factor would be related to 20ft, etc. because it's purely related to relative magnification.

So if a 1.5ft subject translate to a 6ft tall image, the magnification is 4x. So it's not too different from a typical LF macro that one might do?

[poliweb]

Being too curious and not being able to find any more information about the camera, etc. other than hearing it produces "warm... true... honest... life-like" images... I took matters on to my own hands and decided to do some calculations.

I first looked at the trailer CGI (http://vimeo.com/27359714) (completely assuming that it's to scale) and estimated the relative height of a seated person in pixels... approximately 98. So if we assume an average person is 6ft tall that translates to around 16.3 pixels per foot. The trailer measured out to be almost exactly 570 pixels and this makes total sense because they say it's a "35 ft camera" (570/16.3=35).

Looking at the rotating CGI (0:49 in the video), I noticed the film plane is directly above the rearmost axle. This was the last piece of the puzzle as I could estimate out the focal length of the lens using the thin lens equation as follows:

1/o + 1/i = 1/f

o = 75 pixels = 4.6 ft
i = 300 pixels = 18.4 ft

(Note how i is exactly 4 times o) So, after solving the equation, f or focal length = 3.7 ft = 44 inches = 1120mm

As we know the image plane is "6 feet" (1828.8mm) tall (in portrait orientation), we can calculate the angle of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view#Example) now:

2 * arctan(1828.8/(2*1120)) = 78.5 degrees

... but that's a classic wide... exactly like a 75mm lens on 4x5 or a 150 on 8x10. And his portraits don't look like they've been shot with a wide.

Also, I consider the "portrait" field of view to as half of "normal" which is approximately 22.5 degrees. In which case, either the film height needs to be 18 inches, instead of 6 ft... or the focal length needs to be around 168 inches instead of 44 but then that would mean the trailer (o+i) needs to be at least 87.5ft! :eek:

Since this is an estimation I expect things to be a bit off, but not by this much... especially when the CGI is accurate about the person's height and the trailer length.

What am I missing here? :confused:

Your first equation is fine. Another way to look at it is to say that the images look like they're around 4x life size on the negatives. That is 1:4 macro. That means the image is going to be 5 x focal length from the lens. That give a focal length of 18.4/5 ft = 44 inches.

The problem is in your second calculation - it assumes that the camera is focused at infinity and that the film plane is a distance f from the lens. In this (macro) case it is not. You need to substitute the actual distance into your equation:

2 * arctan(1828.8/(2*(18.4*12*25.4))) =
2 * arctan(1828.8/(2*5608)) = 18.5 degrees

I wonder what lens they will use - something like a 47.5" Goerz APO Artar would cover nicely. But it might be a bit slow.

Richard

[Brian C. Miller]

Doesn't he use strobes?

Also off the top of my head I can't see how the bellows factor would be related to 20ft, etc. because it's purely related to relative magnification.

So if a 1.5ft subject translate to a 6ft tall image, the magnification is 4x. So it's not too different from a typical LF macro that one might do?

From the interview:

"When I take the cover off, it's dark so there's no exposure until I flash it. So I take the cover off and flash it and put the cover back on," Manarchy said.

Yes, the lens that he's using for those photographs is essentially acting as a macro lens, and the bellows extension of 35ft is necessary for the magnification. I'm guessing that right now he's using a process lens for this. As for the lack of "wide" look, you won't necessarily get that photographing something against a blank background. I did a close self-portrait as a lens test for a 75mm, and my facial features weren't noticeably skewed.

[Steven Scanner]

From the article;"When I take the cover off, it's dark so there's no exposure until I flash it. So I take the cover off and flash it and put the cover back on," Manarchy said.
No shutter, just a cap. The video does show a flash, but just like Marc, I would expect a longer flash and exposure time. If the video shows the right exposure times and lighting duration, he probably uses fast film.
Why does he only uses B/W? Is there something in the process that prevents color? A special way of developing? Does he use UV light?

[uphereinmytree]

I agree that it's a gimmick. The process is certainly not suited to the subject matter. Any culture found would seem to be subdued by the novelty of the endeavor. I also think it's a bit of mockery to say that it needs to be that large to 'capture the American spirit'. Although to portray 'the American spirit' as an overpriced spectacle has some foundation. He could find American culture by spending a lot of time with a lot of different types of people and photographing what is really on their minds during the daily grind and showing it to us in an original way.

[jnantz]

john chiara has been doing something similar to this for a while
but i don't think his images are scanned+enlarged
they are more like single images.

there is a video of him on utube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xYWehyfFcM

[Brian C. Miller]

Why does he only uses B/W? Is there something in the process that prevents color? A special way of developing? Does he use UV light?

Probably he's using B&W because it's easier to develop a gargantuan negative with B&W chemicals than color. Also, he gets more negatives for his $15,000.

I suspect that all of the prints are inkjet. His Kickstarter page says "giclee" up until the $7,500 donation, where the print is on "weatherproof canvas." I don't remember anybody offering a fine art print on "weatherproof canvas," do you?

The negatives are probably scanned using a blueprint scanner equipped with a backlight. The Contex scanners go up to 54-inch widths, with a resolution of about 500dpi.

[Louis Pacilla]

I'd like to poke a giant hole in his giant bellows.:eek:

Just kidding.;)

[E. von Hoegh]

Probably he's using B&W because it's easier to develop a gargantuan negative with B&W chemicals than color. Also, he gets more negatives for his $15,000.

I suspect that all of the prints are inkjet. His Kickstarter page says "giclee" up until the $7,500 donation, where the print is on "weatherproof canvas." I don't remember anybody offering a fine art print on "weatherproof canvas," do you?

The negatives are probably scanned using a blueprint scanner equipped with a backlight. The Contex scanners go up to 54-inch widths, with a resolution of about 500dpi.

"Giclee"? For a $7500 print? What a putz.

[Brian C. Miller]

No, up to the $7500 donation mark. The print for the $7500 donation is simply described as, "weatherproof canvas." Does that mean billboard material? I have no idea, as I've never printed for a billboard.

As for the lens he's using, I've attached a crop of the studio's picture. Any ideas for what that lens might be? There's a manequin on the posing stand, so its head should give some size range for that lens.

[Lenny Eiger]

I mentioned that this was old news. I checked in with my friends on the Photohistory list and they came up with the reference:
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/work/490.1994/

Yea, 1875!

I don't disagree that its a cool-lookiing thing, but it ain't the latest thing on the block...

Lenny

[Steven Scanner]

I know it has been done before, Lenny. I've seen an article with a picture of a similar size camera. According to the article, the camera was designed and made to take a detailed picture of a locomotive.

About the lens, Brain. There is a shot in the video where Manarchy is taking of the cap from the lens. Seems to be about 10 to 12cm in diameter. When you put that in relation to the film, it's about the size of a pinhole camera should be.

I just thought of a theory. What if the front of the camera is an ordinairy LF camera. The big bellows might be a darkroom. Film from the LF camera is developed and projected on a huge print. From what has been shown, the short exposure and flash time, the relative small lens, the size of the film, the long time it takes to set the camera, it all adds up to something like my theory.

Unless someone can convince me it's real. Can someone make the calculations to convince me? Someone here already made a start, lets finish it. (it also is a good way for me and others to learn more about the theory of photography)

[Jim Jones]

As Brian noted, the setup is essentially for giant macrophotography. The DOF at the subject will be negligable. However, there is a way of overcoming this by using light from the sides restricted to the plane that is in sharp focus. During a long exposure in a dark room, the victim (oops, subject!) is moved through that illuminated plane. The name for this old technique eludes my even older mind.

[Jim Jones]

I know it has been done before, Lenny. I've seen an article with a picture of a similar size camera. According to the article, the camera was designed and made to take a detailed picture of a locomotive. . . .

Steven -- You probably mean this giant: http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html. Unlike the Manarchy boondoggle, this project was competantly done and with commendable results.

[Dan Fromm]

I know it has been done before, Lenny. I've seen an article with a picture of a similar size camera. According to the article, the camera was designed and made to take a detailed picture of a locomotive.

About the lens, Brain. There is a shot in the video where Manarchy is taking of the cap from the lens. Seems to be about 10 to 12cm in diameter. When you put that in relation to the film, it's about the size of a pinhole camera should be.

I just thought of a theory. What if the front of the camera is an ordinairy LF camera. The big bellows might be a darkroom. Film from the LF camera is developed and projected on a huge print. From what has been shown, the short exposure and flash time, the relative small lens, the size of the film, the long time it takes to set the camera, it all adds up to something like my theory.

Unless someone can convince me it's real. Can someone make the calculations to convince me? Someone here already made a start, lets finish it. (it also is a good way for me and others to learn more about the theory of photography)

Well, Manarchy has a working, um, room camera. His monster trailer camera is, AFAIK, a fantasy and the images of it that are floating around are computer generated artist's renderings. Somewhat fanciful.

Room cams have been discussed here and elsewhere at some length. To find results produced with one, ask Google about Richard Learoyd. In discussions here people have said that he uses a 750 Apo Germinar and shoots at well below the magnifications Manarchy seems to be aiming for.

If the renderings of the trailer cam and images to be taken with it are fair representations, Manarchy intends to shoot portraits with it at around 4:1. Doing this will require a 3' - 4' lens. They're around.

As for a 10 - 12 cm lens cap, that's not very big and the lens it goes on probably isn't all that long. To put it in perspective, my 900/10 Apo-Saphir's cap is 14 cm in diameter.

[Two23]

Another thought occurred to me. As someone who shoots outdoors at night using studio flash, I know that for a stationary subject you can actually pop the flash several times to get a LOT of night onto a negative. If he's keeping the room dark, there is no ambient to worry about. He could pop a big pack/head light several times and quickly hit his subject with something like 20,000ws!

I've seen the photo of George Lawrence's big camera before, but does anyone have a link to the photo of the locomotive? I like choo-choos.


Kent in SD

[Brian C. Miller]

Alton Limited, 1905 (http://www.zazzle.com/alton_limited_train_photo_1905_poster-228178218191224893) poster from Zazzle, photograph by George R. Lawrence (http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html)

[Scott Knowles]

Maybe instead of just talking, all of us should get out our wallet and contribute a little. I would hate to see it get cancelled because photographers didn't want to help a good project about America, Americans and photography. How many members do we have that something upwards of $100 each would help significantly?

[Brian C. Miller]

Maybe instead of just talking, ...

Silly me, I was just mocking up a 645 ratio headshot camera! Really, I bought black duct tape and started measuring and choppping on a 5ft cardboard box. I think the film holders would be a sort of vacuum back made from aluminum and balsa, with a shutter cloth darkslide, and loaded from the side. It would be the largest extension made for a Cambo 8x10 studio camera. Then prototype its functionality with RC roll paper.

Really, I feel fine. Shouldn't every state have a gargantuan film camera?

[E. von Hoegh]

Maybe instead of just talking, all of us should get out our wallet and contribute a little. I would hate to see it get cancelled because photographers didn't want to help a good project about America, Americans and photography. How many members do we have that something upwards of $100 each would help significantly?

Get out my wallet and contribute to a hyperbolic gimmick that purports to "capture the American Spirit"? I think not.

[Jim Jones]

Get out my wallet and contribute to a hyperbolic gimmick that purports to "capture the American Spirit"? I think not.

Yes, indeed. Funding any competent photographer with any camera to photograph Manarchy's subjects with care and understanding feels more practical, economical, sincere, and productive than supporting a megalomanical project by someone who doesn't seem to have the technical grasp of George Lawrence long ago with his camera for the Alton Limited photo.

Incidently, I doubt if the 1905 photo of the Alton Limited is the one George Lawrence took five years earlier. I hope not. So far I haven't found a photo that can be attributed to Lawrence's giant camera.

[Brian C. Miller]

The 1905 photograph is of the train, but that's after a retrofit. I don't think it was the same camera. I did find a photo of the crew setting the camera up, but I can't find a reproduction of the three contact prints made from the plate.

[Steven Scanner]

Wikipedia shows us a picture of Lawrence with his mamoth camera. The lens seems to be about 50cm in diameter. That seems a bit more convincing than Manarchy's 10cm lens.

The 1905 photograph of the train doesn't seem that impressive. It's a bit to blurry for what I would expect.

Perhaps another way to find out the truth about Manarchy's camera. Is it possible to see what kind and size of film is used by looking at a picture? Is there a meisurable relation bitween the print and the size of film? If that's the case, "all" you have to do is investigate that.

[Brian C. Miller]

I don't think that the 1905 photograph was made with the Lawrence's camera. It looks like it was made with a normal banquet camera. The train in question had undergone a refit at that time, so a photograph was in order. I have no idea what eventually happened to the mammoth camera and its lens. (Hopefully they're in a museum, but I doubt it.)

Anyways, the mammoth camera used three plates 8ft x 4-1/2ft, and Manarchy's camera uses film 6ft x 4-1/2ft. Depending on the lens length used, a 5ft (for 480mm) to 12ft (for 900mm) extension is required, and f/90 works well enough for a head shot. (macro lens calculator (http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/)) He started out using 220 film taped up, then 8x10 sheets taped up, and now seems to have a custom order of film.

If Manarchy were using film 24ft x 4-1/2ft at infinity, then he'd need a lens like Lawrence used. However, for what he's doing, the current lineup will suffice just fine.

As for lighting, I don't think that scanning light macrophotography (thread: macro photography: generating a plane of light? (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?65947-macro-photography-generating-a-plane-of-light)) is what Manarchy is doing. I'm guessing he's planting a softbox up close to the subject with a ton of watts. There are single heads that can handle 6400WS (Comet CAX-64HS, requires two 3200WS supplies, appx $15K for a setup).

[Jay DeFehr]

I don't think that the 1905 photograph was made with the Lawrence's camera. It looks like it was made with a normal banquet camera. The train in question had undergone a refit at that time, so a photograph was in order. I have no idea what eventually happened to the mammoth camera and its lens. (Hopefully they're in a museum, but I doubt it.)

Anyways, the mammoth camera used three plates 8ft x 4-1/2ft, and Manarchy's camera uses film 6ft x 4-1/2ft. Depending on the lens length used, a 5ft (for 480mm) to 12ft (for 900mm) extension is required, and f/90 works well enough for a head shot. (macro lens calculator (http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/)) He started out using 220 film taped up, then 8x10 sheets taped up, and now seems to have a custom order of film.

If Manarchy were using film 24ft x 4-1/2ft at infinity, then he'd need a lens like Lawrence used. However, for what he's doing, the current lineup will suffice just fine.

As for lighting, I don't think that scanning light macrophotography (thread: macro photography: generating a plane of light? (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?65947-macro-photography-generating-a-plane-of-light)) is what Manarchy is doing. I'm guessing he's planting a softbox up close to the subject with a ton of watts. There are single heads that can handle 6400WS (Comet CAX-64HS, requires two 3200WS supplies, appx $15K for a setup).

Won't that intensity of light expose right through the subject's skin to the capillaries? Or, will a diffuse light source prevent that?

[akfreak]

No we are talking 50K a POP, That is what I am talking about. I winder what negs he is using

[jnantz]

Seriously, how do they print them?

maybe he takes his 6' negatives to a company that does bilboard type work
and they do a reduction negative so he can have his large prints made conventionally.
billboards don't cost a huge amount of money to make ... these days they aren't painted panels
but weatherproof fabric that is stretched or bound to the billboard. maybe his final product is something like that
... and for the one ones that are on canvas ... there is a process where they peel emulsion off of a print onto a receiver
and it is laminated/drymounted onto canvas, maybe this billboard fabric is stucl onto a clear material, and laminated/drymounted the same way.

i have a friend in the outdoor advertising business and could probably do the same type of thing, without
a giant camera. i could use my 8x10 ... if i could only find people to pay me 50,000$ / sitting ...

[Brian C. Miller]

No we are talking 50K a POP, That is what I am talking about. I winder what negs he is using

That's not in the negatives, that's in the salesmanship. These are two very different things. One is from a run of film, the other is from a run of the mouth.

As for what he's offering, I think for $50K you get a custom billboard.
From what was posted on his Kickstarter site:
Gold Reward: 18" x 24" Giclee Fine-Art Print
Platinum: 30"x40” Giclee Fine-Art Print
Diamond: 4-foot by 5-foot "Autumn's Eye" (Left and Right) Giclee Fine-Art Print
Big Camera: Giclee Museum Quality Fine Art Print of "Christina In Distress"
Super Big Camera: 16-foot print from the big camera on weatherproof canvas
Super-Sized Negative: 6-foot by 4.5-foot Project Negative
(emphasis added)

At no time is a normal chemical process print made from the negative. So really, he isn't using negatives for the print.


... if i could only find people to pay me 50,000$ / sitting ...

Salesmanship, salesmanship, salesmanship, salesmanship!!!
#1: Have a unique selling proposition: "My film camera is so big it takes a semi truck to haul it around." "Your face will be two stories tall."
#2: Get lots of press. "I'm planning on great big $8,000,000 cross-country tour financed by somebody else to promote myself shamelessly, ah, er, document vanishing cultures of America."
#3: Attend parties, sell yourself as a really nice guy, and book clients with big egos and bigger check books.

I'll be the real reason Manarchy takes two days chatting with someone before shooting is because he's only going to get one pop with that lighting setup of his. After that, the client is going to need serious recovery time.

[Old-N-Feeble]

So what do you gain over 8x10? Better definition of pores and zits? Its a gimmick.

Of course it's a gimmick. But he's in the news and making $50K per portrait session... and we're not. :D

[Jim Jones]

Of course it's a gimmick. But he's in the news and making $50K per portrait session... and we're not. :D

I hope fellow Largeformatphotography members wouldn't want to make $50k per session with such a shameless promotion.

[Brian C. Miller]

I hope fellow Largeformatphotography members wouldn't want to make $50k per session with such a shameless promotion.

Right, we'd want to make $50k per session with a different shameless promotion! That's the entrepreneurial spirit!

The only real shame to promotion is when the promoter lies. In this case, Manarchy isn't lying, and he comes right out and says that he wants to create a big production, "like the circus coming to town." The camera is in the center ring, producing a roll-width negative. That's proven, and it's there. No lie. Then there's annoying self promotion, when the promoter yaks endlessly on about their venture. And on, and on. I have no idea whether Manarchy actually does this. But as projects go, this isn't a bad one. But I would say that others have done it better.

[Steven Scanner]

I'm actually not interested in the price of Manarchy's product. If he thinks he can ask $50k for a session, good for him. There are probably enough people or companies that want to pay for it. Demand and supply. If you think it's way to much, don't pay.

I'm more interested in how he does it (or how it can be done). I asked a couple of posts back to explain how this is possible. From focus, lighting, film to everything that is needed to take a big picture like he does. Preferebly with calculations and/or sketshes.

[Brian C. Miller]

#1: This is a macro shot, 4x magnification or so.
#2: You'll need a lens that covers at least 8x10. I think that a 400mm+ lens range is necessary, see prior posts.
#3: "I need guns. Lots of guns." Yes, flash guns. Light.

I suspect that Manarchy bought the film as a tail end of a master roll, 4-1/2 feet wide. That would explain the camera/darkroom aspect of his process, and why the ends look a bit funny. He clamps the film to an easel, and exposes the film.

He may develop in a tray, or an open-ended drum.

After the film is processed, it is scanned. Let's see, a blueprint scanner at 500ppi gives 27000 x 36000 pixel area, so 972,000,000 pixels for the final print, and then it's off for printing, with the large stuff on "weatherproof canvas." Is nearly 1Gp good enough for a billboard?

[Brian C. Miller]

OK, from concept to cardboard and duct tape, this is what I did.

Pre-cutting: This is the shipping box for my Burley Nasoke recumbent bicycle. I had a different project in mind, but this one is good. The box is a bit over 5ft, and the total extension is 73in from GG to lens board.
From the inside: Inside the box! It doesn't have to be pretty, but it does have to be light tight.
23in distance: The focal distance is 23 inches. I'm sure that Manarchy is using a longer lens than 480mm, probably around 1000mm.
Ground glass: This is what it looks like on the ground glass at f/8. I think the magnification is a little over 3x.

69009
69010
69011
69012

[Jim Jones]

Brian, That's the way to do it! However, you'll have to do an awfully fancy paint job on the outside of that bike box to justify anything near $50,000 a shot!

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ I wouldn't be so sure. Green recycle folk will LOVE it just the way it is. :)

[Brian C. Miller]

(YouTube) TED talk: Dennis Manarchy: Put Your Insane Hat On (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_UixBcysw0)

Interesting TED talk. He sort of rambles, but the content is varied and well-delivered.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_UixBcysw0

Yes, he's kind of still at it with his huge camera project. Now he wants 100 people to buy from a special edition to fund the construction of the camera. I still don't know where he's going to get the other $7,950,000 to complete the project the way he wants.

[Drew Bedo]

What Lens is on that camera? My guess is that it won't cover the format at infinity . . .so the project is forced into macro-portraiture.


Have I got that right?

[cuypers1807]

i am guessing the taco method wouldn't work on those negatives....

[Jerry Bodine]

And what exactly does one do with an enlargement that's 2.5 stories high (portrait format)? That's 25 feet, using residential standard height of about 10 ft/floor.

[Drew Bedo]

Just because a thing CAN be done . . . .

[LF_rookie_to_be]

What Lens is on that camera? My guess is that it won't cover the format at infinity . . .so the project is forced into macro-portraiture.


Have I got that right?

Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 1070mm f14.

[Drew Bedo]

Well at 1070mm that means infinity focus is ~3 1/2 feet from the focalplane. Will the camera fold up that close? At f14 to start with and all that extension, the exposures must be glacial.

The whole thing (concept, camera, process and product) has my interest . . .but in the end, I still miss the point.

[Brian C. Miller]

I don't think that the camera was built for infinity focus. The lens wouldn't cover 6ft x 4-1/2ft at infinity, anyways. It's built as a macro camera, for portraiture, and it has a narrow depth of field, as you'd expect. Yes, the exposures have to either be in full sun with a sitter braced in a chair, or else (as shown) with a freaking powerful flash.

From what Mr. Manarchy has written and said, he thinks that film is going away completely at some point soon, so this is his way of making a gargantuan statement about film. So he's linking the disappearance of film to the disappearance of languages and pocket cultures, and wants to build a huge monument to it all, with enlargements 25ft high. (Of course those will be printed on conventional inkjet billboard printers, but what the hey.) He wants a custom gallery/museum constructed, to provide the viewer/customer with an immersive experience. He wants his camera to tour the US as an event, in his words, like the circus coming to town. A big, bold attraction.

I don't think that an "artistic point" can be made without the construction of the museum/gallery. Without the display of gargantuan prints from a gargantuan camera, it just becomes something that others have done previously. However, I like it a whole lot better than the chimpanzee in Moscow.

[Drew Bedo]

Ok: Re-reading the thread and really looking at the pictures, I see that he has an enclosure built in the studio for a camera, and wishes that he could build the camera photoshoped onto that trailer. My best corrected vision is 20/200 and sometimes I don't squint hard enough.